== Section 1 : ''Selections'' as a preferred title for a part of a work ==

== Section 1 : ''Selections'' as a preferred title for a part of a work ==

+

If you have "selections" from a single work, instead of the complete work itself, I wonder if we're already talking about ''expressions''. Per FRBR 3.2.1, "A work is an abstract entity; there is no single material object one can point to as the work."

+

Do excerpts or selections from a work also constitute an abstract entity, or does extracting portions of a work inherently move us into the realm of expressions? If so, how would this approach inform the rest of the discussion of this situation?

+

+

- Glennan (PCC), 8/22/11

== Section 2 : ''Selections'' as an attribute of the expression ==

== Section 2 : ''Selections'' as an attribute of the expression ==

Revision as of 16:08, 22 August 2011

To enter your comments in this click on the [edit] link for the section where you want to comment.

Please have your comments ready to paste into the wiki by first writing them in a text editor, like Microsoft Word or Notepad. Don't keep a page open for more than 5 minutes.

General comments

The complexities of this proposal and the circumstances it describes make my head ache. In spirit of Swift, I am tempted to make the immodest proposal the we quietly suppress any resources with these conditions. Absent that, it does appear that the proposal presents the best mechanism for coherently treating the situation. MYERS, MARBI Liaison, 2011/08/17

Background

Treatment of Selections in RDA

Section 1 : Selections as a preferred title for a part of a work

If you have "selections" from a single work, instead of the complete work itself, I wonder if we're already talking about expressions. Per FRBR 3.2.1, "A work is an abstract entity; there is no single material object one can point to as the work."

Do excerpts or selections from a work also constitute an abstract entity, or does extracting portions of a work inherently move us into the realm of expressions? If so, how would this approach inform the rest of the discussion of this situation?

Proposed revision 2: alternative in 6.2.2.10.3

Proposed revision 3: deletion of 6.12.1.4

Proposed revision 4: alternative in 6.14.2.8.6

Proposed revision 5: instruction at 6.23.2.9.7

Proposed revision 6: instruction at 6.23.2.10.3

Proposed revision 7: deletion of 6.25.1.5

Proposed revision 8: alternative at 6.27.2.3

Proposed revision 9: alternative at 6.28.2.3

Proposed revision 10: alternative at 6.30.2.2

Other revisions that would be needed

Impact on MARC 21

I would strongly advocate for:
1) consistent ordering of the subfields, regardless of how an expression came into being -- the coding will be equivalent whether the content is translated, then extracted or whether it is extracted, then translated.
2) putting language and format of content secondary to the scope of the content, that is, subfield k ($k) be given parity with subfield n ($n) so as to precede subfield l ($l) and subfield s ($s).
--MYERS, MARBI Liaison, 2011/08/17

In the Durant example of the Spanish spoken word extract, I recommend the order be Durant ... $t Story of civilization. $k Extracts. $l Spanish. $s Spoken word. As pointed out in the proposal, the access point through "Extracts" represents the work. Language is the next thing we would add for the expression. We then need to add something else only if there is more than one expression in Spanish. So it makes sense to me that the "Spoken word" piece should come after the language. Similarly, if the extracts were in English, we would add language first, then if there is more than one in English, we would add something further like Spoken word to qualify (Durant ... $t Story of civilization. $k Extracts. $l English. $s Spoken word.) Same reasoning for the ordering in the other examples. By the way, I thought the final qualifier was to be given in parentheses--e.g. see RDA 6.27.3, example "Pushkin, Aleksandr Sergeevich, 1799–1837. Evgeniĭ Onegin. English (Beck)" -- so in the example in LCrep/2 wouldn't "Beck" be in parentheses? Actually in RDA I don't understand why the Beck example has the qualifier in parentheses and the Babar example has the "spoken word" qualifier outside of parentheses--what's the difference?
--Bob Maxwell, SAC Liaison, 18 Aug 2011